Photo Analysis of an Aerial Disc Over Costa Rica 1971

reply to post by spacevisitor

But as said in that report, the object was only projected in frame 300, and definitely not on 299 and 301.

Thats a shame really. It would be much more believable as a UFO if it did appear in another frame but in a different position. That would show movement.
As it is, it is still possibly just a film issue.

Originally posted by scitpeks
It would be much more believable as a UFO if it did appear in another frame but in a different position. That would show movement.
As it is, it is still possibly just a film issue.

For me it is quite simple, because I am convinced that ET is here, that they have been seen emerging from lakes, oceans and even rivers, I go for the time being for the option that this disk shaped object is nothing more and nothing less then an ET craft, which possibly just did emerged from out the lake, did hung there for a few seconds as they mostly do as said in many witness accounts, then was photographed in frame 300 and then did shot off.

Here are for this case the reasons for that opinion.

The original negative of the Costa Rica film of an oval aerial disc-like object was obtained and carefully analyzed.
Not only was there no evidence of optical defects, deliberate hoax, or support for other prosaic explanations for the disc image, but interesting new surface details were found, all of which possess the same oblique orientation.
The disc shaped object remains unidentified.

www.scientificexploration.org...

Lake Cote is extremely deep, and there have been numerous other reports of unknown submergible craft entering and leaving it.
Local fishermen, out on the lake in the small hours, have seen various objects below them, giving off coloured lights.
Sometimes the movement of these objects has caused the men to lose their balance and risk plunging into the water.
They have also been blamed for a reduction in the fish population.
One morning, around 9am, two men heard a metallic noise coming from the lake and saw an object emerge that was shaped like a submarine with three 'domes' on its top.
It hung there for a few seconds, then shot off towards the mountains to the north.

www.think-aboutit.com...

My two € cents

Thank you for the thread, OP. I recall seeing this image some years back and it's certainly one of the classic cases in the field. Like most others here, I have no idea what it is, but as the expert analyses already done seem to exclude a film artifact as the source -- and ditto a defect in the camera lens or its plexi cover as it only appears in the one frame -- it is utterly fascinating.

EDIT to add: just out of curiosity, I did a web search to see if any other unusual or significant events relating to UFOs or aircraft occurred on Sept 4, 1971 (the date the image was taken). As it happens, there was a plane crash that day. Alaska Airlines flight 1866 crashed during an instrument approach to Juneau Municipal airport with the loss of all 111 people on board. This crash occurred just after noon local time, which would place it some hours after the Costa Rican image under discussion was taken.

I only mention this because of a statement in the NTSB's findings about the accident:

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined the probable cause of the accident was a display of misleading navigational information concerning the flight's progress along the localizer course which resulted in premature descent below obstacle clearance altitude. The origin or nature of the misleading navigational information could not be determined.

(Bolding mine)

The source for the above info is here Doubtless more detailed reports are also available as well.

Granted, the two events are probably unconnected. However, I just find it curious that a passenger jet went down due to "misleading navigational information" whose "origin or nature could not be determined" within hours of this large, flying object being recorded, especially considering that the calculations of its possible airspeed suggest it could have flown as far as Alaska in the time lapse between the two events. The time in Costa Rica (CR) is two hours ahead of Alaska time, so at around 8:30 am in CR, it was about 6:30 in Juneau. Flight 1866 crashed 5 1/2 hours after this object's image was captured. I have only done a rough calculation of the distance, giving a figure of around 4800 miles, but even allowing for a low-end estimate of the UFO's speed, it could easily fly to Alaska inside of 5 hours.

Okay, I'm probably not helping the discussion overly much, it's just the timing of the events combined with the NTSB's statement that makes me feel it's at least worth mentioning, if only for curiosity value. I am not sure if anyone has postulated any link between these two events in the past.

Best regards,

Mike

Originally posted by spacevisitor

Lake Cote is extremely deep, and there have been numerous other reports of unknown submergible craft entering and leaving it.
Local fishermen, out on the lake in the small hours, have seen various objects below them, giving off coloured lights.
Sometimes the movement of these objects has caused the men to lose their balance and risk plunging into the water.
They have also been blamed for a reduction in the fish population.

That last sentence is interesting. I find it quite funny really though, it's typically Costa Rican. There is a lot of pollution here in Costa Rica, with a general disregard for the environment (despite it being so valuable to them in terms of export and tourism) where rubbish can acceptably just be dumped wherever you please. Cars produce lots of fumes (many looking like they shouldn't be allowed on the road) and I don't think there's such a thing as unleaded. It's not uncommon for someone to dump excess chemical products (in the case of farming or small time industry) in a stream or river. Farming uses lots and lots of chemicals. There's not very much recycling going on either. Most rivers I've seen here are full of trash and that's just the visible stuff, I dread to think what else is in them. You certainly wouldn't want to swim in them. I think this is a more likely cause for the reduction in fish population. The funny part is that Ticos generally have a hard time taking blame for things, I don't know if it is the reflexive verbs in Spanish or just the Tico culture but to blame ufos for the fish disappearing is typical of the average person not seeing the consequences of their actions here. As their national phrase suggests, 'Pura Vida', they tend to live in the moment. This will come back to bite them though when wildlife starts dying off and tourists decline and the colones slides. Then they will not be blaming ufo/uso for fish decline.

reply to post by KIZZZY


Well as its not near any known volcanic regions, and its not too far off coast, it's probably not volcanic activity but I'm not a geologist so don't take my word on it. Also, I've heard of the huge 10+ mile long UFO over Texas, but 5+ of them in a concentrated area would have been spotted on sonar, especially if seen by Google satellites. There is multiple pentagonal shapes, and usually they would be smoother edges right? Especially for a 20 mile wide one, so maybe it could be a section of Atlantis

This really looks like those UFO seen in the NASA "tether" footage and other space footage, have you seen the documentary "Moon Rising" ? it has a lot of the same images as this disc represents.

reply to post by Indoc
Yes...your not getting the usual know it alls in this thread.

reply to post by alien102


alien102~
That was an excellent post my fiend!
Well done.
Couldn't agree more..

and love the Ubuntu addition thrown in at the end.

The disc looks to be shot in studio/controlled conditions. If it was indeed that big it would not have three sources of directional light. Instead it would have one diffused or ambient light source. Where are those black reflections coming from? That ain't the sky reflecting back. Also looks to be double exposed, old school trick.

S

Originally posted by stucoles
The disc looks to be shot in studio/controlled conditions. If it was indeed that big it would not have three sources of directional light. Instead it would have one diffused or ambient light source. Where are those black reflections coming from? That ain't the sky reflecting back. Also looks to be double exposed, old school trick.

S

I gather you have not read about the case, or looked into the report

"I gather you have not read about the case, or looked into the report"

I have, thanks for asking. And it still doesn't change my opinion on the evidence presented.

S

Originally posted by stucoles
"I gather you have not read about the case, or looked into the report"

I have, thanks for asking. And it still doesn't change my opinion on the evidence presented.

S

Im sorry, but if you did read the report, you will know that it is not double exposure, or manipulation Most will agree that we are looking at something which is there, what it is, we just don't know. But i think you should go back and read the case again and explain why you think its double exposure or manipulation.

reply to post by zorgon


OH BOY !,THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FLYING SAUCERS,THE TRIANGLE IS THE ONLY HTHING THATS UFO IN THE WORLDS AIR SPACE

the disk looks like it isn't of the same quality of other things in the picture. it appears out of place and fake.

reply to post by Jay-morris


The report states in detail, and then shows a pic. of the linear graphics "painted" on the object.
The report, the report!

reply to post by zorgon


Best photo I've ever seen bro. Nice work

Hey

I have read the report, and I'm still dubious.

If you re-photograph a 'tampered' image on to fresh film there is no way to tell if it has be double exposed or not. They only received three connected frames of the original neg. Why?

The fact that the object is appearing over a black body of water makes it an easier 'comp'. If it were appearing over the land mass I would be more impressed.

The report also calculates that the object would need to be traveling at 1,988 mph and yet there's no motion blur. None at all. Even taking into account high shutter speeds and lack of movement on the camera that just doesn't fit. I know for sure they didn't have Phantom cameras in 1985.

Also would something traveling that fast be doing so at an angle? (Maybe, who knows? but it seems very unlikely)

The reflections, the reflections...the report is even stumped.

Just my opinion.
Ok, back to Fringe Ep3...

S

"Also would something traveling that fast be doing so at an angle?"

Unless it was traveling diagonally of course!!
I am silly.

S

reply to post by randomname



Where would a UFO not look out of place?

Just because it looks out of place doesn't mean you can call it fake.

reply to post by zorgon


VERY COOL. i love the old footage, especially the 1960's
that was some flap!
this from 71 eh, i know the case but have never seen the negative shown.
nice find.
as always a pleasure,great thread * for you and ya ferrets